In Pursuit of a New American Industrialism

Pittsburgh: Sucky for Singles?

Ugh. The Post-Gazette is reporting on yet another list ranking cities. This is one that people watch sort of closely, as it looks at how cities measure up for "singles." You know... the young creative types that will save us all. So how did we do? Not so good: 35th out of 40.

But let me be the first to say it: If you are wringing your hands over this, someone ought to break your fingers. These lists are fun, I guess. But they don't mean a whole lot. Don't believe me? Let's examine the methodolgy employed in this case (as reported in the PG):

Forbes.com arrives at these admittedly subjective placements by measuring the 40 largest U.S. metropolitan areas according to calculations of culture (the number of museums, pro sports teams, live theater and concert venues per capita, as well as the university population)...

OK. Hold on. What's this mean? Are these things necessarily good? I lived in Baltimore in my early 20s, and I went to museums and pro-sports events maybe five times total. Granted, I was more of a boozehound than some of you might have been. But this seems tilted toward a certain "class" of individual. And is "per capita" a good measure? What if all the concert venues suck? I know it is hard to measure "quality," but more concert halls does not, necessarily, a better city make.

...nightlife (number of bars, restaurants and nightclubs per capita)...

OK. That's more like it. But again, quantity does not mean everything. Would you rather live in a place with two really nice local pubs, or one with an Applebees, a TGIFridays and a Don Pablos?

...job growth (projections for the next five years)...

Chris Briem, take it away.

...the cost of living alone (the sum of the average apartment rent, a Pizza Hut pizza, a six-pack of Heineken and a movie ticket)...

Heineken? Movie tickets? Sheesh.

... online dating (number of profiles on Yahoo! Personals)...

Wait. If all these people are doing great on the singles scene, why would they be looking for dates online? Wouldn't a large number of online profiles speak to a BAD dating scene?

...the number of other singles (people never married over 15)...

But the number doesn't mean anything at all. It's the RATIO. And it doesn't work for everybody. For instance, if I were a single man I would love to live in a city with just 99 other single people. As long as they were all women. And I would hate to live in a city with a million other singles, if a large percentage of them were men.

...and "coolness" (derived from a nationwide poll of adults by market research firm Harris Interactive).

I think I am going to cry. Which, in and of itself, would reduce our coolness quotient by quite a lot. Balls. Go to a bar. Drink until your BAC intersects with your IQ. You'll find someone you like. Believe me. Or just by yourself a six pack of Heineken, rent a movie and order a pizza. I hear that's what the people in cool cities do.

Comments

This is the annnual Forbes list that all good little yinzers just love to hate, or nit pick. Last year, Chris Breem and I went in circles about it. The last thing we had to agree to disagree about was the Forbes uses never married over 15, and he liked another arbitrary older age, like 25, or something.

Take a look at the details for PIT. We suck in all catigories, but the worst numbers are for singles count(34 out of 40), and job growth (36 out of 40). Our "high point" is culture, 22 out of 40. Just below the middle of the pack. Whoopie.

The details of our #8 rank for "most drunken" city are pretty funnny too.
We are SERIOUS binge drinker(2/35), and heavy drinkers (8/35), but not much more alcoholic (22/35) than average.

Double ye-ha. Pass the Penn Pilsner. Better make it 2, but only because I want to, I can stop any time.

(#1 was Milwaukee, with a score of 4/1/3/1/3, they are going to be hard to beat. Hmmm, there a casino with a poker room there? Drunks are the happiest losers.)